Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

YOu have a habit of saying that you "are done with me". I m seeing a distinct pattern.

You are discussing a specific building here on this thread. I am saying that the stated height is 42m, and that does not tally with 17 storeys. You are avoiding this by asking me why the height and storey count of the building matters.
I am comfortable with people drawing their own conclusions from that.

You know, I am really smelling the AE911T panic with this Plasco collapse. First they double down on the dumb by declaring it CD, then they start grasping for straws regarding the height of the buikding.

Face it, Tony. Steel frame buildings can collapse from a fire. I know this bursts your, any many others, bubble. But all that bubble is doing is keeping out reality. Embrace it as a shining light entering your life.

Gage et. al is just pointing out the correct procedures as described the NFPA 921.

The Plasco collapse also reinforces what the people interviewed on the Experts Speak Out documentary were saying about how they would expect the collapse to be slower and disorderly.

Well when I see free fall or near free fall acceleration and focused expulsions from a collapsing building, that was also on fire, both fire and explosives are going to be involved in my initial hypotheses.

Explosives alone are not effective against steel-framed buildings if the proper preparation of the steel structure is not undertaken. That was evident during the detonation of a huge vehicle bomb beneath WTC 1 in 1993 and again as WTC 1 and WTC 2 absorbed major impacts from B-767s. After the impacts, the steel structure of each building simply redistributed their structural loads around the damaged areas, which was also the case involving WTC 7, where it's south wall suffered major impact damage.

The reason why I asked you in another thread in reference to the significance of structural redistribution in the presence of uncontrolled fires that raged for hours, was to ascertain your level of knowledge regarding structural load redistribution and the ineffectiveness of explosives in regard to steel-framed buildings if proper preparations are not undertaken. I am very sure that you can find a video where steel structures withstood the blast effects of a nuclear detonation and photos of the Chinese embassy that absorbed 5 JDAM GPS-guided precision bombs. Needless to say, the building did not collapse.

It should be evident by now as to why demolition teams must first pre-weaken steel structures before explosives are placed, a process that would that would have taken many months of preparation that would not have gone unnoticed in the occupied WTC buildings.

Because it is clearly important that we garner accurate information as to the dimensions, structural design, materials etc of this building in order to discuss it's collapse. If we cannot even establish the basics of height and storey count, what chance have we got of gaining accurate information beyond that, in order to better inform our discussion? NONE

I am saying that the only height reference I can get for this structure is 42m. That does not tally with the CTBUH's own stated criteria for calculating same. If you are not armed with accurate information, how can you discuss the building in an informed manner ?

ETA "for calculating same in terms of a 17 storey building" that should have been.

Because it is clearly important that we garner accurate information as to the dimensions, structural design, materials etc of this building in order to discuss it's collapse. If we cannot even establish the basics of height and storey count, what chance have we got of gaining accurate information beyond that, in order to better inform our discussion? NONE

I am saying that the only height reference I can get for this structure is 42m. That does not tally with the CTBUH's own stated criteria for calculating same. If you are not armed with accurate information, how can you discuss the building in an informed manner ?

ETA "for calculating same in terms of a 17 storey building" that should have been.

Your serious study of this collapse is on an obscure web forum?

What have the designers stated for the height? Have you contacted the city regulators for plans that have been filed?

__________________"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

About the only significance of all this is at what point/story level do codes change regarding passive fire protection.

If "high rise" has a specific meaning cuz they have different codes, then it matters.

The weight of water alone in the uppermost floors of this building make the height and storey count all the more crucial. I am sure you have seen the pictures of these features toward the top of the building.

I am smelling a bunch of individuals on this forum jumping to conclusions on the Plasco building collapse because it fits a narrative they want to believe with WTC 7. It has nothing to do with reality.

I think I am going to see what investigatory details emerge on the Plasco collapse and do some analysis on my own before coming to a conclusion.

There are violent and somewhat focused expulsions emanating from the Plasco building right before and during the collapse which do not immediately lends themselves to natural means.

Just as with the WTC structures, you and AE911T reject the obvious driver of collapse, FIRE, in favour of utter and pure unadultered fiction.

That is of course unless you have some evidence other than "could'a been.

Will you be posting updates as you receive them in your investigation?

Has the Iranian government included you in their investigation?

Of course, if I garner more data and information on the building and can do so I will share it. As for inclusion in the investigation, I am not part of the Iranian ministry, and given that you already know that they have as yet not responded to me, I can only take your 2nd question as an attempt at sarcasm.
Try again.

Of course, if I garner more data and information on the building and can do so I will share it. As for inclusion in the investigation, I am not part of the Iranian ministry, and given that you already know that they have as yet not responded to me, I can only take your 2nd question as an attempt at sarcasm.
Try again.

No sarcasm intended. You are actually serious in your investigation?

__________________"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

I think you misunderstood me. The lead investigator from the Iranian ministry would be hesitant to share the drawings if they exist. I am not involved in the ongoing investigation into the building collapse which is underway and being undertaken by the relevant Iranian minister appointed to lead it.

I think you misunderstood me. The lead investigator from the Iranian ministry would be hesitant to share the drawings if they exist. I am not involved in the ongoing investigation into the building collapse which is underway and being undertaken by the relevant Iranian minister appointed to lead it.

Why do you think he/she would not share their information? Have you contacted them with your concerns?

__________________"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Why do you think he/she would not share their information? Have you contacted them with you concerns?

I don't think they will have them to be honest. As to my contacts with them, I don't want to elaborate on that. But I will share anything that I can get from them which is allowed to be in the public domain.
What I am interested in right now is the very basics. The building height and the amount of storeys. I am so far working on the presumption that the building was 42m high, and therefor would not have 17 storeys above ground. You have stated that you don't think that this is at all relevant.

Actually yes, I have made an initial approach to them. To the ministry of the appointed investigative lead. In the interim absence of a response I am trying to get details elsewhere.

ETA, I should add that the height reference that I have got so far is 42m. And searches of native Iranian media and sites state mostly 14 or 15 storeys.

That qualifies as a high rise.

A high-rise building is a structure whose architectural height is between 35 and 100 meters. A structure is automatically listed as a high-rise when it has a minimum of 12 floors, whether or not the height is known.

A high-rise building is a structure whose architectural height is between 35 and 100 meters. A structure is automatically listed as a high-rise when it has a minimum of 12 floors, whether or not the height is known.

Yes, I can accept that definition if it suits.
Shyam Sunder clearly states 15 storeys though, and that cut off point and the reason for it is somewhat puzzling. The CTBUH also have a stated method for ascertaining storeys and height of buildings. Certainly 42m does seem low even for a 15 storey above ground building, let alone a 17 storey. Hence my initial interest in getting the height of the building accurate.
As I said, the best I can get so far is 42m, I am more than happy to look at any source you have which states anything different to that.

Again, I don't have any reliable sources. 42m is still defined as high rise, though.

Yes, it may well be. But as per the CTBUH own criteria for storey/height assessment 42m does not equate to 17 storeys above ground. As I said, at least one of those numbers is wrong. If you do find a source that states anything other than 42m I trust you will let me know.

When you explain the simultaneous free fall acceleration of all four corners of WTC 7 as being due to fire maybe then we can talk. Until then I am casting my pearls among swine by even contemplating your silly arguments. There is only one explanation for the simultaneous free fall over the full length and width of the building and neither NIST, ARUP, or WAI explain it. That is because it won't comport with what they want to say.

It is kind of like we aren't going to discuss what seat you get at the show when you don't even have the money for admission.

Holy shifting goal posts, batman. Just wow. This is Tony Szamboti admitting he has no actual argument as to why WTC 7's global collapse could not have been initiated by fires; instead, he is now retreating to the position that, even if fires could have initiated a global collapse, that such global collapse wouldn't have involved the four corners of the outside frame falling as observed. Because he has some sort of model of the global collapse? Because he has some principled take on how such a complex system must behave? Because he has some back of the napkin calculations on column buckling? No, no, and no. Because he has given himself over to a fantasy and so the engineering and evidence don't even matter anymore.

Can you even be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge you were wrong about the heating and that your girder model was flawed, Tony? If you want to change the scope of the discussion to talk about the final global collapse, we can. But you should at least demonstrate you can be honest. Everyone has watched you flounder on these questions for weeks now and we all know your mistakes. Why not just own up to them and approach the next topic honestly?

Yes, it may well be. But as per the CTBUH own criteria for storey/height assessment 42m does not equate to 17 storeys above ground. As I said, at least one of those numbers is wrong. If you do find a source that states anything other than 42m I trust you will let me know.

Yes, I will. Now, since you agree that it fits the definition of a high rise, do you agree that this point in AE911T's AIA Convention resolution is no longer true after that building's collapse?

WHEREAS, prior to and since September 11, 2001, no steel-framed high-rise has ever suffered a total collapse, except buildings demolished through the procedure known as controlled demolition

__________________Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.